Citation Nr: 18150869 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 17-67 318 DATE: November 15, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for allergies is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder is remanded. REFERRED The issue whether new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder was raised by the Veteran’s September 2017 Notice of Disagreement. That issue is not currently developed or certified for appellate review. Hence, it is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for appropriate action. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1972 to January 1976. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a December 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Service connection Right knee disorder and allergies VA obtained opinions for service connection in October 2017. The examiner found while the Veteran sustained a right knee injury and suffered from acute allergies during service, but there was no documentation of record of continued care and treatment. As a result, the examiner found she was unable to determine whether the Veteran’s current right knee disorder was related to his initial right knee injury without resorting to mere speculation. The Board does not find the October 2017 VA opinion probative because the examiner did not provide a specific explanation why the available information, including the Veteran’s own statements, was rejected when finding that the appellant’s right knee disorder and allergies were not related to an inservice right knee injury. For example, at the October 2017 VA examination, the Veteran reported that ever since injuring his right knee during his active service he had experienced knee pain. He also reported a history of allergies since service. The Veteran is competent to report these symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). If the examiner doubted the credibility of the claimant’s assertions the examiner was obligated to explain why. Finally, the examiner did not explain whether a finding based on resorting to mere speculation reflects the limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large or to the limits of her knowledge and expertise. Accordingly, the Board must remand this issue for a new examination and opinion. Right eye disorder A VA examiner provided a negative opinion in October 2017. The examiner stated that age-related cataracts were common among all senior populations, not just those who have been in service, and that cataracts are not a disorder caused by a service-related injury, event, or illness. The October 2017 medical opinion inadequate because there is no rationale provided for the conclusion that the Veteran’s cataracts are not a disorder caused by a service-related injury, event, or illness. The mere fact that the Veteran is currently in an age group where cataracts are common is not sufficiently explanatory to find the examination adequate, particularly in view of the Veteran’s September 1973 history of right eye trauma and a corneal abrasion while on active duty. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and private medical records identified by the Veteran as pertinent to his claims. If the RO cannot locate such records, it must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them, and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain any government records would be futile. The RO must then: (a) notify the claimant of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claims. The claimant must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Thereafter, provide the appellant’s VBMS and Virtual VA/Legacy files to an appropriate physician, who has not previously treated or examined the appellant, for review and comment addressing the etiology of any diagnosed allergies, right eye disorder, and right knee disorder. Following a complete review of all of the evidence, to specifically include the appellant’s self-reported histories, the physician examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that any diagnosed allergic disorder, right eye disorder, and/or right knee disorder is related to the Veteran’s active duty service. If the physician examiner has reason to doubt the appellant’s self-reported medical history the reason for those doubts must be fully explained. A complete, well-reasoned rationale must be provided for any opinion offered. If the requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training. DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Denton, Buck